Did misogyny win the 2016 US election?

I'd be interested to know what % of voters actually affect the result.
It's such a polarised two party system. There must be a huge % of the electorate that will vote Republican, no matter what, and would never vote Democrat.
And vice versa.
So a large proportion of people would never have voted for Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because she's Democrat. And those people would always vote for Trump no matter what since he's Republican.
It's the floating voters who affect the election.
How many of them are they?

What does it mean to say something played no role in an election, though? There are a lot of voters, some have very strange reasons ,and there are some little blocs that have very strange reasons, for their choices. But I would not say they really won or lost the vote. There will always be these groups of people with special interests, and I tend to think they cancel each other out somewhat and you can't easily influence them.

I would also say that I don't think someone with bad attitudes about women or any other group may actually have voted a particular way for that reason. Sometimes the other reason even is what drives the attitude, as people are often exposed to anti-social thinking through another deeper connection. If you have been a working class person in the US, maybe not all that politically sophisticated, your interests have only been talked about in the conservative media. So for ten years or more you have also been exposed quite often to other ideas those people are spouting, and it has an effect.

People who voted for Trump because of his views on race are a very small group. I have not seen any numbers of people who did it due to his attitude to women, but I also expect it was small. Or for that matter, people who did not vote for HC because of her being a women - I think they are a small group who would have voted for a Republican anyway, maybe even if the Republican candidate was a woman.

So I don't really consider those people the factor that lost her the election.

Posting pictures of those whose politics are driven by misogyny doesn't actually do anything to address those whose isn't, so I really don't know why you responded like that.

Asking why people voted for Trump is a bit like asking why people voted for Brexit.

And one more:

And some more:

Ok, I said I wasn't going to weigh in any further, but I do want to post a few photos of middle American Trump supporters whose "politics are not driven by misogyny," and to whose voices we should all defer a little more. (You should, of course, view these photos with the soundtrack of "Lock her up!" chanted at each of his rallies in your mind).

My partner is a keen gardener and really fascinated by off grid living. As a result we listen to lots of American podcasts relating to this sort of thing. They tend to be produced by libertarians, of both the left and right leaning pursuation, and in amoung tips on how to kick start an old generartor and can your own produce, there's politics and lots of it. These arent your mainstream media shows made in LA or NY, rather independent mid America with call ins and the like.

We were never, not for one minute, suprised that Trump won. Over the years the amount of hostility towards federalism and the political establishment could be read in the voice of every presenter and every caller; they despised Obama, they despised the Bushes, they despised the Clintons. Their politics wasn't driven by misogyny, wasn't driven by race and wasn't even noticeably partisan, it was driven by class and concepts of freedom based upon their interpretation of the Constitution.

Now I know there are those who voted for Trump based on shitty reasons, just as there were undoubtedly those who voted for Clinton for shit reasons too. But there's a whole load of people between the coastal power cities (where race, sex etc are given a disproportionate amount of political importance comparatively) who voted Trump for different reasons, and they often don't get an international voice. Many, for some reason, saw Trump as anti establishment. Some of them have since changed their mind, on account of him being a moon beam, others will stick with him on the basis of their being little alternative. These people are probably guilty of overlooking Trump's misogyny, but certainly didn't vote for him based on it.

For the sake of my blood pressure, I won't weigh in on this thread except to say this:

Many factors contribute to a presidential candidate's victory or loss. When I read someone determined to claim that misogyny played NO role in the 2016 election (not just a smaller or less important role than x, y, or z, but NO role at all) I find that person's claims to reveal much more about him- or herself than about American politics.

No, I don't think so. I am increasingly feeling that a lot of Americans are on the wrong track when they believe that certain characteristics, like sex or race, are so overwhelmingly important as to who wins.

That's not to claim there is no effect or that their identity associations don't factor in in other indirect ways, but I think there is really a lot of evidence that most people vote more on other things. Lots of women who run for congress or the senate or local politics do very well. Lots of non-white candidates do very well. I've wondered if the strong belief of many Americans that these factors are overwhelming actually cause the problems they want to overcome to some extent. If you are convinced that race will be a determining factor, that in itself will have an effect.

I think there were two main, related, issues that caused her failure. One is that the Democrats for years have been associated with supporting global capitalism. They have abandoned important sectors that used to support them reliably, Catholics being a minor one, and working class union people being the major one. They actually ignored them in the election and assumed they had those votes, despite running a campaign that on the face of it would be hard for those people to accept. They lost those states. That is not misogyny it is an incompetent political campaign.

The other issue was that for a while now, Americans on the left and right seem to be responding to candidates who look like they are somehow not from the system. Obama appealed in large part because he was relatively inexperienced, something the Republicans tried to criticise him for and it totally backfired - it was like the enemy advertised for him. People liked that he was not a party guy in a big way and that he promised a new way of approaching politics. HC's team made the mistake of using her experience as a selling feature when it actually was a major turn-off. Both Trump and Sanders appealed in part as outsiders of the two main parties, not because they were men. They both claimed they stood against stood against global capitalism, whereas Clinton was careful not to mention that unless she couldn't avoid it.